I have been following a video series for about 2 or 3 months now called Extra credits. Some of you might be familiar with it. They basically talks about game design and various other topics related to the games industry. Today i saw a video that made me rethink my view on bad games.

My previous way of thinking:

A good game brings me joy. It makes me disappear into another world. It teaches me various things, like how a good story should be, how to design interesting characters, how good controls should be.

Crappy games are not worth any money. However, if the studio that made the game is made up of really dedicated people, but surrounded by harsh conditions it can be bought depending on the various circumstances.

A good game made by people not dedicated to making good games, but instead dedicated to earning money, is not worth buying since the studio's way of thinking doesn't suit me. Exceptions can be made if the game is really good.

My new way of thinking:

A good game brings me joy. It makes me disappear into another world. It teaches me various things, like how a good story should be, how to design interesting characters, how good controls should be. (Same as above basically)

Now comes the difference:A crappy game IS worth buying!Why is that? Because it teaches you how things like controls, camera angles, level designs, character designs, mini-game designs should NOT be implemented.The thing with good games is that they are hard to analyze, you are so wrapped up in the awesome experience that you don't notice minor glitches, bugs, poorly implemented features etc, etc. A horrible game will do a lot less to hide the poorly implemented stuff, thus making it easier for you to learn.

I visit the local game store frequently, they have some games i have seen standing there for like a year or two, i never bought em since i thought they were really crappy. They usually cost like 50-100 swedish kronor. (It's about 5-10 euro)

The thing with good games is that they are hard to analyze, you are so wrapped up in the awesome experience that you don't notice minor glitches, bugs, poorly implemented features etc, etc. A horrible game will do a lot less to hide the poorly implemented stuff, thus making it easier for you to learn.

I'm on it. Also many games out there which only show their good quality of display and animation but lack on others.

Indeed, you have to get beyond a simplistic appraisal of resolution, pallette range, and polygon counts and understand the meaning and purpose of the graphics before you can say they are good or bad. Many games' graphics on the C64 and Atari ST and Amiga are still excellent today. So excellent that rather a lot of indie developers try and copy them

i'm not saying the graphics ARE bad, in fact i love them. i've had dreams in 320x200 256 bit color (don't ask. i don't know how either). i'm just saying that some would consider them to have bad graphics. but the gameplay is still awesome.

There's always "some" who consider everything they look at to be crappy but these I suspect are mostly just kids or big kids (we get people telling us they could write our games in Flash, heh). They are easily ignored. It riles me when a supposed critic does the same, mind. I don't think I've seen a professional* game with bad graphics in the last 20 years, if I'm honest.

I don't think you could say they were any better or worse either way; they just make full use of what technology is available. In many ways the modern graphics are considerably better technically, but probably the only significant advance over the original Amiga version is that the display zooms as well as pans.

I don't think you could say they were any better or worse either way; they just make full use of what technology is available. In many ways the modern graphics are considerably better technically, but probably the only significant advance over the original Amiga version is that the display zooms as well as pans.

Cas

Oh, they've got more bit depth, but IMO the look has gone from a serious game to a toy for five-year-olds.

Hm I'd sat that the latest Worms has very clear and concise graphics and icons that are superbly designed and that at it's core it's still exactly the same aesthetic as the original Amiga version. And they look wonderful on a great big telly with the whole family around it trying to kill each other on a PS3

pffft, I'm sure people have been swaying that since before DOOM came out. Not that there's no truth in it, but ultimately good games do well for being good games.

You are correct, maybe instead of 'today' I should have gone for the 'in my day'.

@Good Games:Depends on your definition of 'good game', and then we are back at square 1.Usually the first criteria people go on are graphics because that is the first thing they see.How many people would have stuck with Minecraft if they had only the Screenshots to work with?

I think it is hard to say that a game has good or bad graphics. I mean what are the guidelines for "good" graphics? When I look at graphics in a game, I mostly look at it the same way as when I look at a painting. A painting by Picasso or da Vinci have qualities in their own way, and both pixelalted graphics and super realistic 3d graphics have their qualities. But I guess most people enjoy realistic paintings compare to abstract though.

Im a bit suprised that this thread has recieved so much replies, when i first posted it it didn't get that much attention.Another thing that i am a bit suprised over is that whenever people talk about bad or good games, graphics is always a major topic of discussion. Graphics plays a very minor role in determening whether a game is fun or not. At least it does for me. An example: Far cry 2 = eye candy but really, really boring and repetitive gameplay. no offence toward the guys that liked it, but for me it just wasn't fun playing. As you all know, the main objective with a game is to be fun.

On-topic: Far cry 2 learned me that one should not design traveling in an open world so that you are intercepted by armed rebels every 2 mins and constantly have to fight for your life while searching for new vehicles.

While I appreciate good graphics, they certainly aren't deal makers/breakers for me. I think the reason everyone here is talking about them is because, as programmers, graphics are typically what define a "high production value" game. We don't worry about the engineering because we've got it covered, but graphics are always on our minds. How can we get people to play our games with our crappy programmer graphics? Or how can we find an artist?

let's stop talking about graphics for now, and assume, hypothetically, that the graphics on every game out there are equal.

now, let's compare say, Doom 1 and 2 with doom3. The mapping in Doom 1 and was much better than in doom 3, even though you couldn't have balconies or room over room. Id just started sucking at mapping.

character design complements mapping. For example, in BLOOD, I ended up in a kitchen sink, with a fat guy throwing cleavers and spitting green gunk at me, disembodied hands were crawling around, trying to choke me, and there's this big firebreathing dog running around. crazy gameplay is FUN! also, in blood, if you hit a zombie just right, its head flies off. you can then kick it like a soccer ball, and it trails blood as it goes flying. very entertaining. people also like gibbing things.

weapon design is also a part of a good game. Weird ones are very nice. take the flaregun from blood for example. it's entertaining lighting people on fire.Also, don't require reloading. even though the shotgun in Doom couldn't hold 100 shells in real life, the fact that you don't have to reload allows constant carnage.

next is how the game actually works. FPS games are mostly "kill everything" games. minecraft is a wierd mix of FPS and survival, with the twist that you make everything you use.

yeah it is. just thought of something: several great games are totally weird. Just look at Earthworm Jim! The idea for Mario is totally outlandish. i mean, take goombas for instance, and those talking mushrooms. Super Smash Bros Brawl was a VERY strange experience. you wonder what they were on when they created Kirby's special attack.

I wonder if that has anything to do with early games being marketed towards children, as the characters have a vey picture story book feel, and the jokes tend towards slapstick and potty humour. Modern games tend to be more seriouos. Even the indie creative games tend towards a specific stylistic feel or even sometimes trippy.

I wonder if that has anything to do with early games being marketed towards children, as the characters have a vey picture story book feel, and the jokes tend towards slapstick and potty humour. Modern games tend to be more seriouos. Even the indie creative games tend towards a specific stylistic feel or even sometimes trippy.

From what I've seen indie games seems to try new things and new gameplay more, and make more changes than the big companies that risk a lot of money.

Oh man, i loved NOLF and NOLF2! The humour in them was so awesome! My favorite map were the one in NOLF1 where you attack a marroco hotel full of guys with little red hats and sunglasses xD

Thumbs up for great games being totally weird! Lots of games that are very twisted have also been very successful. Litttle big planet is one game that pops up into my mind when i think of weird and twisted successful games. The fun of it doesn't lie in killing things like traditional fps's. Rather it's about being creative. Same thing with minecraft. Sure, killing creepers is fun, but the charm in minecraft lies in building.

I spent some time analyzing the games i bought a while ago. What i found out is that by adding companions in a very dull and boring game, you can make it fun. The game i discovered this in was beowulf the game. Man that was a horrible game without the thanes. The combat system sucked and it was too easy. But with a couple of thanes folowing you, taking orders from you and heping you in battle, it got fun. Im not saying Beowulf is a great game, cuz it's not! But it got better by adding companions.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org